From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21149C43331 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 05:17:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECE3222D0 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 05:17:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="kVWHzDKV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726107AbfKMFRT (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:17:19 -0500 Received: from mail-yw1-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52]:34615 "EHLO mail-yw1-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726087AbfKMFRT (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:17:19 -0500 Received: by mail-yw1-f52.google.com with SMTP id y18so322062ywk.1 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:17:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Gb4ewfjgPCGRx8bhjFPb2zRwepox5PVbxqmHMUQvW/U=; b=kVWHzDKVspeHHAJdK68q6fWlwyQsUZI9/bN9Q7J1TD0xovjLBfGceCyDeGjnCn3ysq TY6Bi2FY5omiNhENYfoK38k+FvdIQeEyKNzj6sHrv98RaRmDOj4oxXYdanTu6wahYM2a v5LTXJDg8bkU2Parva55Qe3ShTMtBb+gESH6xVeuWsxBHFOR+P9J8vQwr4wPk62sZTfJ lRuPNneRLBsgHfIHWikL81wYiuvO9uyrfTLEbduU0o3m0boGPbCAHf174hbWhBY3PIPR Aj79vxDS+FRaRAWozAlXEUJjXsPcPACbirjnvKFW69yFYvcAaDTUGs8L3HNxFy4ILgLp CDOw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Gb4ewfjgPCGRx8bhjFPb2zRwepox5PVbxqmHMUQvW/U=; b=Aucj9c8ZwU+hIFl29RW6x8JgoBkjY/wBxgzQgigMr8/Qi+qtJ5pklkEsQLqbX8CKyy ss42BgT43u4cS6gkLR0GnIghn0rBKyNLyo8lxpjBFodJi1TFD7I5YmIs0KsIrDdB0oZc Ok44BoZuWl5wDB8aUPP/OLttbDZi4Z5JU3oEGnX6+c4iXiAwIQrUq5VRK7fd/KS2II73 prwt+lC4UiXW3gC8Pcfasi+MtKlCn8gnbzJGGD5h2T8aBDvHfu5914iCR24+NhqSP3h3 DhL9lOg1IhEmJ5SyUZASFUDCtXEOa3GCF4pD86zS9Bk8G+lAYIZZXNJ8PIfcXr2jYcVi P6/w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwHDBpXxT2k+CplvlXl397g1h6AqYksFDsiwOMnyBrnZih5uvR RHjob+nZgrh351ERjwpimUGzW8fIti5JSzmR1TI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzgva4c3/eCX2CBLxT8N00M9/l5IZG7bHXcEE8Xr9jbRLcr4XkpE+DWyOiKbDwNwpWGJNTmXFZ9OtgFVcs0VrY= X-Received: by 2002:a81:58c6:: with SMTP id m189mr960311ywb.25.1573622237981; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:17:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191111213630.14680-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <20191111223508.GS6219@magnolia> <20191112211153.GO4614@dread.disaster.area> <20191113035611.GE6219@magnolia> <20191113045840.GR6219@magnolia> In-Reply-To: <20191113045840.GR6219@magnolia> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:17:06 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] xfs: extended timestamp range To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-xfs , Arnd Bergmann , Deepa Dinamani Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org > > Practically speaking I'd almost rather drop the precision in order to > extend the seconds range, since timestamp updates are only precise to > HZ anyway. > FWIW, NTFS and CIFS standard is unsigned 64bit of 100 nanoseconds counting from Jan 1, 1601. > > Heh, ok. I'll add an inode flag and kernel auto-upgrade of timestamps > to the feature list. It's not like we're trying to add an rmap btree to > the filesystem. :) > Exactly. > > > > All right, so how do we proceed? > > Arnd, do you want to re-work your series according to this scheme? > > Lemme read them over again. :) > > > Is there any core xfs developer that was going to tackle this? > > > > I'm here, so if you need my help moving things forward let me know. > > I wrote a trivial garbage version this afternoon, will have something > more polished tomorrow. None of this is 5.6 material, we have time. > I wonder if your version has struct xfs_dinode_v3 or it could avoid it. There is a benefit in terms of code complexity and test coverage to keep the only difference between inode versions in the on-disk parsers, while reading into the same struct, the same way as old inode versions are read into struct xfs_dinode. Oh well, I can wait for tomorrow to see the polished version :-) Thanks, Amir.